"... an article in Saturday's New York Times about Obama's relationship with Ayers, now 63. But that article concluded that "the two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' "
Several other publications, including the Washington Post, Time magazine, the Chicago Sun-Times, The New Yorker and The New Republic, have debunked the
idea that Obama and Ayers had a close relationship.Riot and bomb conspiracy charges against Ayers were dropped in 1974, and he is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago."
Sarah Palin attacked Barack Obama and said he associated with terrorists. This Times' article shows that this is a big stretch and that it is a fairly weak attack from Republicans. But it does open up some renewed scrutiny on the Palin's relationship with a radical political party in Alaska that advocated for seceeding from the United States of America. Here is Josh Marshall:
Palin Around with Traitors
By Josh Marshall
Sarah Palin is accusing Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists." But isn't her husband a former member of a political party which has treason against the United States as its central tenet?Answer: yes.
UPDATE:
When You're Losing
by BarbinMD
John McCain is afraid to run on the war, he's afraid to run on health care, and he's terrified to run on the economy, so he's going to go for fear and smear. It's all John McCain has left. And as McCain campaign manager Rick Davis once said:"The premise of any smear campaign rests on a central truth of politics: Most of us will vote for a candidate we like and respect, even if we don't agree with him on every issue. But if you can cripple a voter's basic trust in a candidate, you can probably turn his vote. The idea is to find some piece of personal information that is tawdry enough to raise doubts, repelling a candidate's natural supporters. [...]
I's not necessary, however, for a smear to be true to be effective. The most effective smears are based on a kernel of truth and applied in a way that exploits a candidate's political weakness."
Davis wrote that in 2000, decrying George Bush's smear campaign against John McCain during the South Carolina primary, saying that:
"Rebutting tawdry attacks focuses public attention on them, and prevents the campaign from talking issues."
And of course today, the last thing John McCain wants to do is to talk about the issues.
.
2 comments:
front page account represents the Times' acknowledgement that there has been some significant story that they've been sitting on, but the report so completely fiddles with the truth that it would made a first rate case study in a class on propaganda.
Both Steve Diamond and Tom Maguire bloggers who've been studying the relationship of the Democrat's presidential nominee and the unrepentant domestic terrorists weigh in.
Steve notes, among other things:
...the nation's leading paper of record is basing its story on Ayers role in Obama's selection on unnamed sources when the three named sources -- who were involved personally in the discussions about Obama's appointment -- do not confirm that Ayers was not involved. And as I told the Times there is written evidence that, in fact, Ayers was involved in the selection of Board members, and, in fact, that he would have had to have been involved given his formal role in applying for and winning the grant from the national Annenberg Challenge.
The Challenge Board was chaired by Barack Obama and Obama also served as President of the Challenge. (I will explore the role of Obama in those two executive positions in a later post here.) The Obama campaign and Obama himself have attempted to minimize the candidate's longstanding and close professional and political relationship with Ayers because of Ayers' authoritarian politics and past record of terrorist activities.
Tom adds evidence that Obama repeatedly falsely minimized his relationship with Obama, making us question why he did so and why the NYT somehow overlooked that in weighing the credibility of its sources for this piece.
I cannot imagine another race in American history where the media has done so much to hide from the voters a critical and damaging piece of information about one of the candidates: His apparent 13 year association with a man who worked to bomb domestic targets and kill his fellow citizens.
Update from Ed Lasky:
The New York Times continues its record of agenda-driven journalism in a "story" about the connections between Barack Obama and unrepentant terroists (and founder of the Weathermen) Bill Ayers which the Times dismisses as inconsequential. While the Times notes that Barack Obama has "played down" his "contacts" with Bill Ayers, this is spin. Indeed just the use of the word "contacts" gives a flavor to the Times approach: to depict the relationship between Ayers and Barack Obama as episodic. Why not use a fuller term such as "relationship" which most journalists use to describe the ties between the two?
The Times writes that Ayers is engaged in "school reform". That sounds nice except it certainly does not describe Ayers agenda.
I guess the Times did not desire to delve further into what type of reform Ayers is advocating-which is the radicalization of our schools and the subversion of our education.
Also, have the journalists considered the fact that relying on people who know both men and Obama campaign representatives may not be the best way to uncover the truth?
Rabbi Wolf , for example, is not a reliable source: he is far to the left and is a die-hard Obama supporter. He describes Ayers as a toothless ex-radical. In so far as it relates to planting bombs-true. In so far as it related to trying to indoctrinate our young with far left views -- false.
Nor did the Times bother to examine what sort of activities the Woods Fund supported-like anti-Israel agitprop. The Woods Fund (and its seven directors -- including Obama and Ayers -- who signed off on these grants) funded activities of a group that promoted harsh anti-Israel views that might be seen as countenancing terrorism.
Nor did the Times bother to look at Ayers true views on terrorism.
The paper quotes him:
If by then the ambitious politician was trying to keep his distance, it would not be a surprise. In an article that by chance was published on Sept. 11, 2001, The New York Times wrote about Mr. Ayers and his just-published memoir, “Fugitive Days,” opening with a quotation from the author: “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.”
Three days after the Qaeda attacks, Mr. Ayers wrote a reply posted on his Web site to clarify his quoted remarks, saying the meaning had been distorted.
“My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy,” he wrote. But he added that the Weathermen had “showed remarkable restraint” given the nature of the American bombing campaign in Vietnam that they were trying to stop.
I suppose the journalist did not have five minutes to google Ayers on the terrorism and related topics. Had he done so he would have found this relatively recent entry on Bill Ayer's blog. Garance Franke-Ruta of the Washington Post wrote of it:
Nor does Ayers believe his actions with the Weather Underground were terrorism. "I've never advocated terrorism, never participated in it, never defended it. The U.S. government, by contrast, does it routinely and defends the use of it in its own cause consistently," he wrote.
Ayers defines terrorism as "the use or threat of random violence to intimidate, frighten, or coerce a population toward some political end," and he cites, as examples, "an Israeli assault on a neighborhood in Gaza," the Sept. 11 attacks, and "Sherman's March to the Sea" during the Civil War.
Ayers concludes his self-defense with a brief against capitalism. "Capitalism," he writes, "played its role historically and is exhausted as a force for progress: built on exploitation, theft, conquest, war, and racism, capitalism and imperialism must be
Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes will discuss the close relationship between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi - Palestinian supporter and the professor at Columbia University - on a special broadcast of "Hannity's America" which will air tomorrow night at 9:00 PM eastern time.
Khalidi is a former professor at the University of Illinois and was a close friend of Barack Obama and his wife Michelle. At a farewell dinner for Khalidi before he took the Columbia job, Obama 's speech was filled with glowing praise for his friend, including references to the many meals they had shared. He thanked Khalidi for opening his eyes about the problems of the Palestinians.
Khalidi himself has given vocal support to suicide bombers:
During documented speeches and public events, Khalidi has called Israel an "apartheid system in creation" and a destructive "racist" state.
He has multiple times expressed support for Palestinian terror, calling suicide bombings response to "Israeli aggression." He dedicated his 1986 book, "Under Siege," to "those who gave their lives ... in defense of the cause of Palestine and independence of Lebanon." Critics assailed the book as excusing Palestinian terrorism.
Khalidi's wife Mona ran the Chicago area charity, the Arab American Action Network, that received substantial assistance from the Woods Fund, a left wing foundation that Obama and unreconstructed terrorist Bill Ayers were Board members. The AAAN was notorious for its pro-Palestianian sympathies.
Pipes should have quite a bit to say about Mr. Khalidi and Barack Obama's friendship.
Hat Tip: Ed Lasky
Post a Comment